User talk:Ralbegen

Recent endorsements edit

Hi. Something went very wrong on this edit of yours: [1]. You're probably better placed to work out what you meant to do! Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: Oh goodness, thanks for pointing that out! I forgot to turn off the Jailbreak the Patriarchy browser extension which replaces certain words. All fixed now! Ralbegen (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Huge thanks

Hi, just wanted to say: big thanks for adding all the signatories of the Observer letter to the GE Endorsements page! Wish I had such time and patience!! Nbdelboy (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

waters

Hi there,

I think we're both editing at the same time. I think there are some valid points to be made. Let's discuss on talk page? Alexandre8 (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alexandre8: Sure! I'm certain we can get to a consensus. Ralbegen (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

UKIP page

You created the Libdem 2017 leadership page, where you correctly show all pre-nomination Libdem candidates with the same party colour [[2]]. You have chosen to edit the UKIP 2017 leadership page [[3]] removing consistent party colouring I'd inserted and instead putting arbitrary party colours for candidates, including black for two of them (Anne-Marie Waters and Peter Whittle, which I've reverted. All candidates belong to the same party, UKIP. I'm an officer of UKIP and have received complaints of repeated edits by you, those complaints putting a lot ruder suggestions than any put here. If your business is improving accuracy, I'd be delighted to learn your justification for making some candidates blue, some sky-blue-pink and some black. I am reviewing all your interventions there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delors1991 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Delors1991, I've talked through my reasoning on the relevant talk page. I appreciate your disclosing your conflict of interest - openness about these things makes Wikipedia a better place. With regard to the Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2017 article, I started it but I didn't put the polling table together. As the candidates there are speculative, none have campaign materials to draw colours from. I would personally exclude the colour row but maintain the tinting in that case. I hope that helps! Ralbegen (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election

I've nominated this article for deletion. As a contributor, your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. Robofish (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Good faith

I notice on the talk page at Talk:Anne_Marie_Waters#Non-neutral_editing you asked me to assume good faith. I am sorry if you felt I was doubting your motives, it was not my intention. For the record I agree with the general consensus that Waters is an Islamaphobe but I don't actually believe she is a racist or white nationalist, which the media seems to be tarring her as. I think her Islamaphobia has formed through the lens of feminism rather than white nationalism, and she perceives Islam as misogynistic. Ultimately though I don't think we are too far apart in our views about this article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Betty Logan:, thanks for getting in touch. The passage that I was referring to was "you want to stick the knife in, but Wikipedia is not a political platform", which I read as a suggestion of tendentious editing. If that's not what you meant, I'm very glad! Ralbegen (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to doubt anybody's motives, but rather get through that I myself am not an apologist for Islamaphobia, which is always the danger when you partially defend these people. I do not support a "burqa ban" or Muslim sterilisation for example. It's bad enough, but it is distinct from white nationalism. Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking of which: what does it mean if that person is called "the Joan of Arc of neo-fascists"? That she is French in an allegorical sort of way? That she speaks to God? That she was burned by the English? Maybe because she was Irish? That she is--allegorically speaking--a young woman? That both of them played in movies opposite Dustin Hoffman? That she is Catholic--wait, no, she is atheist... Look, it's nice to quote something juicy from a newspaper, but if it is not clear what it means, it means nothing at all. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Drmies: — I read that line as meaning that she's like a heroic leader figure? I don't think it's that opaque. I'm fine with it being taken out of the article, I was just baffled by your edit summary. Ralbegen (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha, that is a perfectly valid reading, but it's only one of many possible ones! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The biggest problem I have in deciphering that label is that I can't work out if it's an insult or a compliment! The source article is behind a paywall so I don't really have a view on whether it should come out or stay in, but if it is to be retained it would benefit from a bit more context. Betty Logan (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely not a compliment. But it's a description drawn from an opinion piece that's not been repeated in third-party coverage — that's the basis on which I'm happy to see it go. If a Telegraph article said that she was described by Etheridge as the Joan of Arc of neo-fascists, it could probably stay. But as it was a political opponent describing her in an opinion piece (and as there's a lot more RS coverage of Waters to draw on than there was in July, when I originally added the phrase to the article!) it should probably go. Ralbegen (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ralbegen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

RHYDIAN article

Dear Ralbegen, Thank you very much for the excellent edit you did on my substantial work on Rhydian. I had been contributing to that article pretty consistently over the years. Firstly, you are right in what you said, that it was more of an appreciation than an article. Quite honestly I haven't had the time to edit it and tighten it up. Very many thanks for not only putting up those damning notices, but then being kind enough to edit it yourself and remove them. It looks alot better. Incidentally I have written other things in the past but the Rhydian article had really become mired in its staleness so you have performed a sterling job. FClef (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)